"Why Are Many Elites Leftists?" From a Mom's Research, part 4


I found this viewpoint on the Epoch Times website and it is right in line with many of the things I already knew. I have been sharing with you some viewpoints of my own on this subject matter, so I wanted to take this opportunity to share this mom's research with you as well.

Her name is Jean Chen and you can find the full opinion article here.

""Why are all successful people leftists?" said my daughter, challenging me with a smile.

""Not all of them. Those leftists are just very loud," I replied. I knew she meant Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, and other powerful people who are trying to change the world according to their imagination.

"However, it is true that a lot of ultra-wealthy are leftists. Why? I have to find the answer because many young people look up to them and believe that their beliefs are the truth.

"I am also curious about one thing—why do these elites support communist radicals, while the radicals smash their stores and even put up a guillotine outside of Bezos's house?

"After reading quite a few insightful books, I learned that what is happening now is nothing new. Since the late 19th century, Western elites have been fascinated with communism and have supported its cause. In the pursuit of utopian ideals, traditional values have been trashed, America has been brought to the brink of socialism, and hundreds of millions of people around the world have been thrown to the bloodthirsty communist beast.

"Even now, this pursuit is ongoing.

"Alliance of Western Elites and Communist Revolutionaries in Russia

"Dr. Antony C. Sutton (1925–2002) was a British-American economist, historian, professor at California State University, and research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His books "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development" detailed Western elites' seemingly incomprehensible support of Soviet Bolsheviks. In a 1987 interview, Dr. Sutton summarized his findings:

""They [Lenin and Trotsky] created a revolution with no more than about 10,000 revolutionaries. They needed assistance from the West, and they got assistance from Germany, from Britain, and from the United States … In 1918, the Bolsheviks really only controlled Moscow and what was Petrograd which is now Leningrad. They could not have beaten off the White Russians, the Czechs who were in Russia at that time, the Japanese who entered. They could not have beaten it off without assistance from the United States and from Britain."

""After the revolution … they [the Bolshiviks] could not operate the plants. So what do we do? With Averell Harriman and the Chase National Bank and all friends on Wall Street, they go in there. … We have these 250–300 concessions with which American companies went into Russia, and they started up the idle plants … All these top capitalists went in and they got Russia going on behalf of the Bolsheviks, because the Bolsheviks either shot or kicked out all the people out of Russia who would run the plants."

"In his book "National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union," Sutton quoted U.S. State Department Decimal File 033.1161, a June 1944 statement by Averell Harriman, a Wall Street financier and the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time:

""Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance."

"Trade and technology exports continued during the Cold War, including the eras of the Korean and Vietnamese Wars. Sutton quoted Shirley Sheibla's writing in Barron's Weekly on Jan. 4, 1971, "The United States has been the 'arsenal for communism' in the Soviet Union." Most weapons, tanks and trucks of North Korean and North Vietnamese communists were provided by the Soviet Union, and "were produced in plants erected and equipped by American and European companies."

"Since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, trade with the USSR had been promoted as a way to "mellow" the Bolsheviks and relax its totalitarian control. Obviously it did not work. The world was at the brink of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Nevertheless, this policy has lasted for more than 70 years. Why?

"Why Did Western Elites Support Communism?

"With the rapid development of science and technology since the 18th century, people started to drift away from belief in God, and believe that humans can take care of everything. With certain arrangements or planning, some people thought, humankind could get rid of all their sufferings and build a paradise on earth. Different socialist and communist thoughts mushroomed.

"According to the 1966 book "Tragedy and Hope" by Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, an Oxford professor named John Ruskin started to instill socialist thoughts into his students in 1870. After graduation, these students entered high societies in the U.K. and its colonies, spreading Ruskin's thoughts far and wide.

"Meanwhile, in the United States, a man named Richard Ely was hired as a professor and director of the Department of Political Economy of Johns Hopkins University in 1881. He was trained in Germany and was enthusiastic about the welfare state idea. According to financial researcher Stephen Soukup's book "The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business," Ely's thoughts would change the American politics dramatically, especially through his disciple Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President.

"By the early 20th century, socialist ideas had conquered the mind of those at the top of the financial, industrial, academic, and political realms. The elites never see communism as an enemy due to similar utopian obsessions. Instead, communist radicals were considered a force they could harness, like a wrecking ball, on their way to tear down old structures and build a new world.

"Through interlocked organizations and foundations supported by Wall Street, the elites have direct influence on government policies. Take for example two of the organizations—the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR).

"A September 1961 article in the Christian Science Monitor indicated that "almost half of the Council [CFR] members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another." Rene A. Wormser, the general counsel of the Reece Committee of the 83rd Congress, pointed out that CFR "became virtually an agency of the government when World War II broke out" and "overwhelmingly propagandize[d] the globalist concept."

"The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) was established in many Pacific nations in 1925. According to "Tragedy and Hope" by Professor Quigley:

"Most of these awards for work in the Far Eastern area required approval or recommendation from members of IPR … And, finally, there can be little doubt that consultant jobs on Far Eastern matters in the State Department or other government agencies were largely restricted to IPR-approved people."

"IPR was found by Congress to be "virtually an organ of the Communist Party of the United States" according to Rene A. Wormser.

"The powerful of CFR and IPR, besides the influences posed by other Wall Street organizations and foundations, explain why the appeasement policy toward the Soviet Union could last for decades. This is also the reason why China and Eastern European countries were betrayed to the communist grip after WWII, according to the book "The Naked Capitalist" by W. Cleon Skousen."


Modern Progressivism traces it roots back to the late 19th and into the early 20th century in what purports to be motivated by the need for social and economic reform. While many may believe this movement was begun in order to help the less fortunate, the poor, the underprivileged, as well as those of other races including Native Americans, a closer examination of these roots uncovers the truth; that this movement was actually begun and continued in order to prop up those who considered themselves better than the aforementioned groups of people. In other words, it was a movement of snobs against slobs.

While on the surface progressivism appears to have the well being of society in mind, the means to achieve their ideals of well being and of a better society are outright suspect. Progressivism wasn't just an economic philosophy, but it was and still is a philosophy of a kind of community organizing, social engineering. Progressives didn't believe that the founders of the United States got it right. They didn't believe, for example in natural or "God given" rights. Progressives believed that rights were given by the law and thus by the state. Progressives believed that it was the responsibility of those who were higher bred and better educated to decide for the rest of society what was best for them. Out of this philosophy grew theories related to economics as well as theories of community building.

Minimum wage laws were among the ideas hatched by progressives during this era, not to make sure people were paid well enough to sustain themselves, but because they believed there was a certain class of people that should only be allowed to work for these low wages and should not be allowed to be entrepreneurs or to be involved in certain aspects of business, which the free market offered, because they weren't intelligent enough or they weren't of the right "class" of people. This included Native Americans, African Americans, those with cognitive disabilities (the so called feeble minded or mentally ill) and women. In other words, the poor trash and women needed to be kept in their places.

"If the inefficient entrepreneurs would be eliminated [by minimum wages,] so would the ineffective workers. I am not disposed to waste much sympathy upon either class. The elimination of the inefficient is in line with our traditional emphasis on free competition, and also with the spirit and trend of modern social economics. There is no panacea that can 'save' the incompetents except at the expense of the normal people. They are a burden on society and on the producers wherever they are."

– A.B. Wolfe, American Economic Review, 1917

Progressives also began to propagate the ideas of eugenics that at the time they tried to legitimize as a science. In 1883 Francis Galton, in England, coined the term "eugenics" to encompass the idea of modification of natural selection through "selective breeding for the improvement of humankind." Eugenics was considered a science by those who advocated for it. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines eugenics: "the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition. Worse yet eugenics and the polices of eugenics were embraced by the Hitler and then utilized by the Nazis during WWII. This synopsis on "Hitler's American Model" sums it up:

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws―the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Contrary to those who have insisted otherwise, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies. He looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened but too harsh. Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler's American Model upends the understanding of America's influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Not only did the progressives of the past, among them Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, seek to sterilize out of existence those they considered to be unworthy to propagate, setting up laws in 32 states for involuntary sterilization, but they also favored racist immigration policies as well as efforts to limit full United States citizenship of certain classes of citizens deemed unfit.

Unfortunately, during this time period it didn't prove to be all that difficult to bring many of these ideas into practical reality. With the help of certain politicians and even judges many of these ideas began to be instituted in a very big way across the United States. For example the well known Supreme Court case known as Buck Vs. Bell wherein it was decided that Carrie Buck, who was considered mentally unfit could be forcibly sterilized for her own good and for the good of society.

("Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924.")

In total 32 U.S. states passed sterilization laws between 1907 and 1937. It wasn't until the 1970s that states began to repeal these laws, finding them antiquated and discriminatory, particularly towards people with disabilities. Some data suggests that it wasn't only the mentally handicapped that were sterilized, but that populations who were targeted included those with Latino names, African Americans and immigrants.


In addition to enjoying some of the best news and commentary on the internet, membership in our patriot community is growing rapidly. Free Membership gives you immediate access to your MyRR Timeline, Pages and Groups. Simply posting content here exactly like you would on FB and Twitt, secures it from censorship.

As you establish your presence, you'll start noticing your RRM content is drawing many times more hits than you are seeing on deepstate-controlled social media. We designed RRM to be your most potent tool for reaching out and touching the world.

One of our authors has an RRM article that popped past 80k hits, while we were still testing the site. Seeing your FB or Twitt posts languishing as usual at one or two dozen engagements, watching the same posts on RRM pulling thousands of hits, you'll get quite clearly why we built this.

No doubt Twitt, FB etc are where the war is, your MyRR Profile and Timeline, Pages and Groups are your Arsenal, where you store the ammo securely, out of reach of the rampant censorship war being waged against the people and against decency and truth.

People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
You must login to post a comment.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://rubyraymedia.com/